Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
